Democrats who didn't vote 2014 put the burden of protecting progressives on those who did

"Voter turnout for Tuesday's election was so bad it left some grasping for the right words to describe it.."

This scenario was described in Ohio's report....(this is incredible):

Ohio's Gov. John Kasich's 31-point victory in quintessential-swing-state Ohio cemented him in the conversation about Republican nominees for president. (Not so fast.....) But record-low voter turnout figures and thousands of Ohioans who left the governor's race blank could complicate that narrative.

Unfortunately, voters who either didn't bother to cast a ballot at all, or who left certain races blank (like with Governor Kasich) are putting the burden of carrying a progressive agenda on those of us who voted. We were willing to take the responsibility on behalf of those who simply stayed home or otherwise protested by not filling in the blanks on the ballot. This kind of non-voting isn't going to keep our Democracy strong. Rather, it's eroding the principles our founding fathers created by describing inalienable rights for everyone. These inalienable rights are supposed to be perpetual, meaning they can't be taken away, except that's what's happening!!!

US News and World Report is reporting how the 2014 mid term election turnout actually decreased, in spite of an obscene amount of money spent to infuence the election.

Voter turnout is a constant issue in the U.S. around an election, particularly among the young. In exit polls from Tuesday's midterms, for example, only 13 percent of voters were under 30.

Nonvoters are also more racially diverse than the voting population and are less educated. More than 40 percent of likely nonvoters in the 2014 elections identified as Hispanic, black or other racial/ethnic minorities, compared with 22 percent of likely voters. While most voters (72 percent) have completed some college, nonvoters are more likely to have never attended college.

On average, the populations who are likely to avoid the polls are also the populations likely to vote for a Democrat, which presents a challenge for the Democratic Party. The challenge of turning out voters likely factored into the Democratic losses in the midterm elections, when Republicans gained control of the Senate.

Because turnout drops for midterm elections compared to presidential elections, it makes more sense to compare Tuesday's voter turnout to the last midterm elections in 2010. Turnout was less for eligible voters this time around: 36.6 percent voted, compared with 40.9 percent in 2010, according to data from the United States Elections Project.

The differences were especially stark in some states that saw nosedives of crazy proportions. Turnout numbers in Washington, Delaware, Missouri, South Dakota, California and Indiana all dropped by more than 10 percentage points between 2010 and 2014. And although some states made gains in voter turnout (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Maine, to name several), most states dropped. Only 12 states turned out a higher percentage of eligible voters this year than in the last midterms.

Tragically, the 2014 election was a protest vote among Republicans who needed a revenge event following their 2012 Presidential loss to President Obama. In a double down insult, 2014 was a protest among voters who simply expressed their anger by not voting at all.

In my opinion, the 2014 election was more than a Republican victory for those who ran for GOP office and won. Even sadder for Democrats, the election was a victory for the United States Suprepem Count Citizen United ruling, whereby money now enjoys free speech under the US Constitution.

Apparently, the obscene money factor caused many to recoil rather than vote. Obviously, American voters were cheated, because the $4 billion spent kept 2/3rds of them from voting at all. Now the burden of carrying a progressive agenda is on those of us who bothered to vote. It's not clear to me that this is a standard many of us can carry for 2/3 who obviously just don't give a damn.